1. Paul, etc.1111 “The inscription of the Pauline Epistles,” says Turrettin, “is according to the manner of the ancients, both Greeks and Romans. They were wont to prefix their name; and to those to
whom they wrote they added their good wishes.” We have an example in Acts 23:26. — Ed.
— With regard to the word Paul, as it is a subject of no such moment as ought to detain us, and as nothing can be said
which has not been mentioned by other expounders, I should say nothing, were it not proper to satisfy some at small expense
without being tedious to others; for the subject shall be despatched in a very few words.

They who think that the Apostle attained this name as a trophy for having brought Sergius, the proconsul, to the faith of
Christ, are confuted by the testimony of Luke, who shows that he was so called before that time. (Acts 13:7, 9.) Nor does it seem probable to me, that it was given him when he was converted to Christ; though this idea so pleased
Augustine, that he took occasion refinedly to philosophize on the subject; for he says, that from a proud Saul he was made a very little
(parvulum1212 Thereby expressing the meaning of Paulus, which in Latin is little. “Paul,” says the quaint Elnathan Parr, “as signifies little, and indeed not unfitly, for he is reported to have been low in stature, and to have had a very small
voice,” which is thought to have been objected to him in 2 Corinthians 10:10 — Ed.
) disciple of Christ. More probable is the opinion of Origen, who thought that he had two names; for it is not unlikely to be true, that his name, Saul, derived from his kindred, was
given him by his parents to indicate his religion and his descent; and that his other name, Paul, was added, to show his right
to Roman citizenship;
1313 Most writers agree in this view, regarding Saul as his Hebrew name and Paul as his Roman name. — Ed.
they would not have this honor, then highly valued, to be otherwise than made evident; but they did not so much value
it as to withhold a proof of his Israelitic descent. But he has commonly taken the name Paul in his Epistles, and it may be
for the following reasons: because in the churches to which he wrote, it was more known and more common, more acceptable in
the Roman empire, and less known among his own nation. It was indeed his duty to avoid the foolish suspicion and hatred
under which the name of a Jew then labored among the Romans and in their provinces, and to abstain from inflaming the
rage of his own countrymen, and to take care of himself.

A servant of Jesus Christ, etc. — He signalizes himself with these distinctions for the purpose of securing more authority to his doctrine; and this he seeks
to secure by two things — first, by asserting his call to the Apostleship;
1414 “A called Apostle — vocatus apostolus — κλητὸς απόστολος;” our version is, “called to be an Apostle”. Most consider “called” here in the sense of chosen or elected, “a chosen Apostle.” Professor Stuart observes, that κλητὸς in the writings of Paul has always the meaning of efficient calling, and signifies not only the invited,
but the effectually invited. He refers to 1
Corinthians 1:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Romans 1:6, 7; Romans 8:28; compared with Galatians 1:15; Jude 1:1; Hebrews 3:1; Romans 11:29; Ephesians 4:1 He was an Apostle by a call, or as Beza renders it, “by the call of God — ex Dei vocatione apostolus.” The meaning is the same as what he himself expresses it in Galatians 1:1. Turrettin renders it, “Apostolus vocatione divina — an Apostle by divine vocation.” The difference between “a called Apostle” and “called to be an Apostle,” is this, that the first conveys the idea that he
obeyed the call, and the other does not. — Ed.
and secondly, by showing that his call was not unconnected with the Church of Rome: for it was of great importance that
he should be deemed an Apostle through God’s call, and that he should be known as one destined for the Roman Church. He therefore
says, that he was a servant of Christ, and called to the office of an Apostle, thereby intimating that he had not
presumptuously intruded into that office. He then adds, that he was chosen, (selectum — selected,
1515 Αφωρισμένος separated, set apart; “segregatus,” Vulgate; “separatus, Beza. “The Pharisees,” says Leigh, “were termed ἀφωρισμένος we may English them Separatists: they separated themselves to the study of the law, in which respect they might be called ἀφωρισμένος εἰς τὸν νόμον, separated
to the law. In allusion to this, saith Drusius, the Apostle is thought to have styled himself, Romans 1:1, ἀφωρισμένον εἰς ἐυαγγέλιον, separated unto the Gospel, when he was called from being a Pharisee to be a preacher of the
Gospel.” Separated is the word adopted both by Doddridge and Macknight, as well as by our own version. — Ed.
) by which he more fully confirms the fact, that he was not one of the people, but a particular Apostle of the Lord. Consistently
with this, he had before proceeded from what was general to what was particular, as the Apostleship was an especial service;
for all who sustain the office of teaching are to be deemed Christ’s servants, but Apostles, in point of honor, far exceed
all others. But the choosing for the
gospel, etc., which he afterwards mentions, expresses the end as well as the use of the Apostleship; for he intended briefly
to show for what purpose he was called to that function. By saying then that he was servant of Christ, he declared what he
had in common with other teachers; by claiming to himself the title of an Apostle, he put himself before others; but as no
authority is due to him who willfully intrudes himself, he reminds us, that he was appointed by God.

Then the meaning is, — that Paul was a servant of Christ, not any kind of servant, but an Apostle, and that by the call of
God, and not by presumptuous intrusion: then follows a clearer explanation of the Apostolic office, — it was ordained for
the preaching of the Gospel. For I cannot agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal election
of God; and who understand the separation, either that from his mother’s womb,
which he mentions in Galatians 1:15, or that which Luke refers to, when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles: but I consider that he simply glories in having
God as the author of his call, lest any one should think that he had through his own rashness taken this honor to himself.
1616 Some combine the four separations. “Set apart in the eternal counsel of God, and from his mother’s womb, Galatians 1:15, and by the special commandment of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13:2, confirmed by constitution of the Church,
Acts 13:3; Galatians 2:9.” — Parr. But the object here seems to have been that stated by Calvin: nor is it just or prudent to connect any other idea with the word except that which the context requires; for to do so only
tends to create confusion. — Ed.

We must here observe, that all are not fitted for the ministry of the word; for a special call is necessary: and even those
who seem particularly fitted ought to take heed lest they thrust themselves in without a call. But as to the character of
the Apostolic and of the Episcopal call, we shall consider it in another place. We must further observe, that the office of
an Apostle is the preaching of the gospel. It hence appears what just objects
of ridicule are those dumb dogs, who render themselves conspicuous only by their mitre and their crook, and boast themselves
to be the successors of the Apostles!

The word, servant, imports nothing else but a minister, for it refers to what is official.
1717 Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, etc., where, in a similar sense, called servants; and also our Savior. They were officially
servants. — Ed
I mention this to remove the mistake of those who too much refine on this expression and think that there is here to
be understood a contrast between the service of Moses and that of Christ.

2. Which he had before promised, etc. — As the suspicion of being new subtracts much from the authority of a doctrine, he confirms the faith of the gospel by antiquity;
as though he said, “Christ came not on the earth unexpectedly, nor did he introduce a doctrine of
a new kind and not heard of before, inasmuch as he, and his gospel too, had been promised and expected from the beginning
of the world.” But as antiquity is often fabulous, he brings witnesses, and those approved, even the Prophets of God, that
he might remove every suspicion. He in the third place adds, that their testimonies were duly recorded, that is, in the Holy
Scriptures.

We may learn from this passage what the gospel is: he teaches us, not that it was promulgated by the Prophets but only promised.
If then the Prophets promised the gospel, it follows, that it was revealed, when our Lord was at length manifested in the
flesh. They are then mistaken who confound the promises with the gospel, since the gospel is properly the appointed preaching
of Christ as manifested, in whom the promises themselves are exhibited.
1818 The verb is προεπηγγείλατο only here; it comes from επαγγέλλομαι, which Schleusner says, means in the middle voice, to promise. “Which he had before promised.” is then the proper rendering, and not “Which
he formerly published,” as proposed by Professor Stuart. Both Doddridge and Macknight have retained our version, with which that of Beza agrees. — Ed.

3. Concerning his own Son, etc. — This is a remarkable passage, by which we are taught that the whole gospel is included in Christ, so that if any removes
one step from Christ, he withdraws himself from the gospel. For since he is the living and express image of the
Father, it is no wonder, that he alone is set before us as one to whom our whole faith is to be directed and in whom it
is to center. It is then a definition of the gospel, by which Paul expresses what is summarily comprehended in it. I have
rendered the words which follow, Jesus Christ our Lord, in the same case; which seems to me to be most agreeable with the context. We hence learn, that he who has made
a due proficiency in the knowledge of Christ, has acquired every thing which can be learned from the gospel; and, on the
other hand, that they who seek to be wise without Christ, are not only foolish, but even completely insane.

Who was made, etc. — Two things must be found in Christ, in order that we may obtain salvation in him, even divinity and humanity. His divinity
possesses power, righteousness, life, which by his humanity are conveyed to us. Hence the Apostle has expressly mentioned
both in the Summary he gives of the gospel, that
Christ was manifested in the flesh — and that in it he declared himself to be the Son of God. So John says; after having
declared that the Word was made flesh, he adds, that in that flesh there was a glory as of the only-begotten Son of God. (John 1:14.) That he specially notices the descent and lineage of Christ from his ancestor David, is not superfluous; for by this he
calls back our
attention to the promise, that we may not doubt but that he is the very person who had been formerly promised. So well
known was the promise made to David, that it appears to have been a common thing among the Jews to call the Messiah the Son
of David. This then — that Christ did spring from David — was said for the purpose of confirming our faith.

He adds, according to the flesh; and he adds this, that we may understand that he had something more excellent than flesh, which he brought from heaven,
and did not take from David, even that which he afterwards mentions, the glory of the divine nature. Paul does further by
these words not only declare that Christ had real flesh, but he
also clearly distinguishes his human from his divine nature; and thus he refutes the impious raving of Servetus, who assigned flesh to Christ, composed of three untreated elements.

4. Declared 1919 “Declaratus,” ὁρισθέντος. Some of the ancients, such as Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others, have given to this verb the meaning of is “proved — δειχθέντος;” demonstrated
— ἀποφανθέντος;” “exhibited — ἀποδειχθώντος;”etc. But it is said that the word has not this meaning in the New Testament,
and that it means, limited, determined, decreed, constituted. Besides here, it is found only in Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Acts 10:42; Acts 11:29; Acts 17:26; Hebrews
4:7. The word, determined, or constituted, if adopted here, would amount to the same thing, that is, that Christ was visibly determined or constituted the Son of God
through the resurrection, or by that event. It was that which fixed, settled, determined, and manifestly exhibited him as
the Son of God, clothed and adorned with his own power. Professor Stuart has conjured a number of difficulties in connection with this verse, for which there seems to be no solid reason. The phrase,
the Son of God, is so well known from the usage of Scripture, that there is no difficulty connected with it: the full phrase is the only-begotten Son. To say that Christ’s resurrection was no evidence of his divine nature,
as Lazarus and others had been raised from the dead, appears indeed very strange. Did Lazarus rise through his own power?
Did Lazarus rise again for our justification? Was his resurrection an attestation of any thing he had previously declared?
The Revelation A. Barnes very justly says, that the circumstances connected with Christ were those which rendered his resurrection a proof of his
divinity. Professor Hodge gives what he conceives to be the import of the two verses in these words, “Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the
Son of David; but he was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection from the
dead.” This view is taken by many, such as Pareus, Beza, Turrettin, etc. But the words, “according to the Spirit of Holiness” — κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, are taken differently by others, as meaning
the Holy Spirit. As the phrase is nowhere else found, it may be taken in either sense. That the divine nature of Christ is
called Spirit, is evident. See 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 3:18 Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers, consider The Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives this paraphrase: — “Declared, or determinately marked out to be the Son of God and with power. The thing was demonstrated by an evidence, the exhibition
of which required a putting forth of power, which Paul in
another place represents as a very great and strenuous exertion, ‘According to the working of his mighty power when
he raised him from the dead.’ — The Spirit of Holiness, or the Holy Spirit. It was through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at
the birth of Jesus Christ; and the very same agent, it is remarkable, was employed in the work of the resurrection. ‘Put to
death in the flesh,’ says Peter,
and ‘quickened by the Spirit.’ We have only to do with the facts of the case. He was demonstrated to be the Son of God
by the power of the Holy Spirit having been put forth in raising him from the dead.” As to the genitive case after “resurrection,”
see a similar instance in Acts 17:32 The idea deduced by Calvin, that he is called here “the Spirit of Holiness,” on account of the holiness he works in us, seems not well-founded, though
advanced by Theodoret and Augustine. — Ed.the Son of God, etc.: or, if you prefer, determined (definitus); as though he had said, that the power, by which he was raised from the dead, was something like a decree by which he was
proclaimed the Son of God, according to
what is said in Psalm 2:7, “I have this day begotten thee:” for this begetting refers to what was made known. Though some indeed find here three separate
evidences of the divinity of Christ — “power,” understanding thereby miracles — then the testimony of the Spirit — and, lastly,
the resurrection from the dead — I yet prefer to connect them together, and to reduce these three things to one,
in this manner — that Christ was declared the Son of God by openly exercising a real celestial power, that is, the power
of the Spirit, when he rose from the dead; but that this power is comprehended, when a conviction of it is imprinted on our
hearts by the same Spirit. The language of the Apostle well agrees with this view; for he says that he was declared by power,
because power, peculiar to God, shone forth in him, and uncontestably proved him to be God; and this was indeed made evident
by
his resurrection. Paul says the same thing in another place; having stated, that by death the weakness of the flesh appeared,
he at the same time extols the power of the Spirit in his resurrection; (2 Corinthians 13:4) This glory, however, is not made known to us, until the same Spirit imprints a conviction of it on our hearts. And that
Paul includes, together with the wonderful
energy of the Spirit, which Christ manifested by rising from the dead, the testimony which all the faithful feel in their
hearts, is even evident from this — that he expressly calls it the Spirit of Holiness; as though he had said, that the Spirit,
as far as it sanctifies, confirms and ratifies that evidence of its power which it once exhibited. For the Scripture is wont
often to ascribe such titles to the Spirit, as tend to illustrate our present subject. Thus He is called by our Lord the
Spirit of Truth, on account of the effect which he mentions; (John 14:17)

Besides, a divine power is said to have shone forth in the resurrection of Christ for this reason — because he rose by his
own power, as he had often testified:

“Destroy this temple, and in three days
I will raise it up again,” (John 2:19;)

For he gained victory over death, (to which he yielded with regard to the weakness of the flesh,) not by aid sought from another,
but by the celestial operation of his own Spirit.

5. Through whom we have received, etc. — Having completed his definition of the gospel, which he introduced for the recommendation of his office, he now returns
to speak of his own call; and it was a great point that this should be proved to the Romans. By
mentioning grace and apostleship apart, he adopts a form of speech,
2020 “Hypellage,” a figure in grammar, by which a noun or an adjective is put in a form or in a case different from that in which
it ought grammatically to be. — Ed.
which must be understood as meaning, gratuitous apostleship or the favor of the apostleship; by which he means, that
it was wholly through divine favor, not through his own worthiness, that he had been chosen for so high an office. For though
it has hardly any thing connected with it in the estimation of the world, except dangers, labors, hatred, and disgrace; yet
before God and his saints, it possesses a dignity of no common or ordinary
kind. It is therefore deservedly counted a favor. If you prefer to say, “I have received grace that I should be an Apostle,”
the sense would be the same.
2121 If this view be taken, the best mode would be to render και, even “favor, even the apostleship.” But, as Wolfius says, “both words would perhaps be better rendered separately, and “grace” or favor be referred to the conversion of the
Apostle himself, and “apostleship” to his
office. See 1 Timothy 1:12-14, and Acts 9:15, Acts 13:2; Acts 22:21. —
Ed

The expression, on account of his name, is rendered by Ambrose, “in his name,” as though it meant, that the Apostle was appointed in the place of Christ to preach the gospel, according
to that passage, “We are ambassadors for Christ,” etc. (2 Corinthians 5:20.) Their opinion, however, seems better, who take name for knowledge; for the gospel is preached for this end — that we may believe on the name of the Son of God. (John 3:23.) And Paul is said to have been a chosen vessel, to carry the name of
Christ among the Gentiles. (Acts 9:15.) On account then of his name, which means the same, as though he had said, that I might make known what Christ is.
2222 He has taken this clause before that which follows, contrary to the order of the text, because he viewed it as connected
with the receiving of the apostleship. “Pro nomine ipsius,” — ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνὸματος αὐτοῦ; “ad nominis ejus gloriam — to the glory of his name,” Turrettin; “for
the purpose of magnifying his name,” Chalmers Hodge observes, “Paul was an apostle that all nations might be obedient, to the honor of Jesus Christ, that is, so that his name
may be known.” Some, as Tholuck, connect the words with “obedience to the faith,” as they render the phrase, and, in this sense, “that
obedience might be rendered to the faith among all nations for the sake of his name.” But it is better to connect the
words with the receiving of the apostleship: it was received for two purposes — that there might be the obedience of faith,
and that the name of Christ might be magnified. — Ed.

For the obedience of faith, etc. — That is, we have received a command to preach the gospel among all nations, and this gospel they obey by faith. By stating
the design of his calling, he again reminds the Romans of his office, as though he said, “It is indeed my duty to discharge
the office committed to me, which
is to preach the word; and it is your duty to hear the word and willingly to obey it; you will otherwise make void the
vocation which the Lord has bestowed on me.”

We hence learn, that they perversely resist the authority of God and upset the whole of what he has ordained, who irreverently
and contemptuously reject the preaching of the gospel; the design of which is to constrain us to obey God. We must also notice
here what faith is; the name of obedience is given to it, and for this reason — because the Lord calls us by his gospel; we
respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act of
disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentence, “For the obedience of faith,” rather than, “In order
that they may obey the faith;” for the last is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively, though it be found once in
the Acts 6:7. Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel.
2323 It might be rendered, “that there might be the obedience of faith,” or, “in order to produce,” or, “Promote the obedience
of faith.” The obedience is faith. The command is, “believe,” and the obedience must correspond with it. To obey the faith,
as in Acts 6:7, is a different form of expression: the article is prefixed there, it is the faith, meaning the gospel. —
See 2 Thessalonians 1:8. Professor Stuart and Haldane, agree in this view. The latter refers to Romans 10:3, where the Israelites are charged for not submitting to God’s righteousness; and, in verse 16, it is said, that they had not all obeyed the gospel, “for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” Then to believe the gospel is in an especial manner to obey it. — Ed.

Among all nations, etc. It was not enough for him to have been appointed an Apostle, except his ministry had reference to some who were to be taught:
hence he adds, that his apostleship extended to all nations. He afterwards calls himself more distinctly the Apostle of the
Romans, when he says, that they were
included in the number of the nations, to whom he had been given as a minister. And further, the Apostles had in common
the command to preach the gospel to all the world; and they were not, as pastors and bishops, set over certain churches. But
Paul, in addition to the general undertaking of the apostolic function, was constituted, by a special appointment, to be a
minister to proclaim the gospel among the Gentiles. It is no objection to this, that he was forbidden to pass through Macedonia
and
to preach the word in Mysia: for this was done, not that there were limits prescribed to him, but that he was for a time
to go elsewhere; for the harvest was not as yet ripe there.

Ye are the called of Jesus Christ, etc. He assigns a reason more nearly connected with them — because the Lord had already exhibited in them an evidence by which
he had manifested that he had called them to a participation of the gospel. It hence followed, that if they wished their own
calling to remain sure, they
were not to reject the ministry of Paul, who had been chosen by the same election of God. I therefore take this clause,
“the called of Jesus Christ,” as explanatory, as though the particle “even” were inserted; for he means, that they were by
calling made partakers of Christ. For they who shall be heirs of eternal life, are chosen by the celestial Father to be children
in Christ; and when chosen, they are committed to his care and protection as their shepherd.
2424 “The called of Jesus Christ,” i.e., the called who belong to Christ. Κλητὸς means, not only those to whom the external call of the gospel has been addressed, but those who have been also internally called.” — Stuart. The same
author renders the words κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, in the next verse, “chosen saints,” or, “saints effectually called.” — Ed.

7. To all of you who are at Rome, etc. By this happy arrangement he sets forth what there is in us worthy of commendation; he says, that first the Lord through
his own kindness made us the objects of his favor and love; and then that he has called us; and thirdly,
that he has called us to holiness: but this high honor only then exists, when we are not wanting to our call.

Here a rich truth presents itself to us, to which I shall briefly refer, and leave it to be meditated upon by each individual:
Paul does by no means ascribe the praise of our salvation to ourselves, but derives it altogether from the fountain of God’s
free and paternal love towards us; for he makes this the first thing — God loves us: and what is the cause of his love, except
his own goodness alone? On this depends our calling, by which in his
own time he seals his adoption to those whom he had before freely chosen. We also learn from this passage that none rightly
connect themselves with the number of the faithful, except they feel assured that the Lord is gracious, however unworthy and
wretched sinners they may be, and except they be stimulated by his goodness and aspire to holiness, for he hath not called
us to uncleanness, but to holiness. (1
Thessalonians 4:7.) As the Greek can be rendered in the second person, I see no reason for any change.

Grace to you and peace, etc. Nothing is more desirable than to have God propitious to us, and this is signified by grace; and then to have prosperity and success in all things flowing from him, and this is intimated by peace; for however things may seem to smile on us, if God be angry, even blessing itself is turned to a curse. The very foundation
then of our felicity is the favor of God, by which we enjoy true and solid prosperity, and by which also our salvation is
promoted even when we are in adversities.
2525 “The ancient Greeks and Romans,” says Turrettin, “wished to those to whom they wrote, in the inscription of their epistles, health, joy, happiness; but Paul prays for far
higher blessings even the favor of God, the fountain of all good things, and peace, in which the Hebrews included all blessings.” — Ed.
And then as he prays to God for peace, we must understand, that whatever good comes to us, it is the fruit of divine
benevolence. Nor must we omit to notice, that he prays at the same time to the Lord Jesus Christ for these blessings. Worthily
indeed is this honor rendered to him, who is not only the administrator and dispenser of his Father’s bounty to us, but also
works all things in connection with him. It was, however, the special object
of the Apostle to show, that through him all God’s blessings come to us.
2626 “From God our Father, — if God, then able; if our Father, then willing to enrich us with his gifts: and from our Lord Jesus Christ, — from our Lord, who has purchased them for us; from Jesus, for without these we cannot be saved; from Christ, for he is
anointed with grace and peace, John 1:16.” — Parr

There are those who prefer to regard the word peace as signifying quietness of conscience; and that this meaning belongs to it sometimes, I do not deny: but since it is certain
that the Apostle wished to give us here a summary of God’s blessings, the former meaning, which is adduced by Bucer, is much the most suitable. Anxiously wishing then to the godly what makes up real happiness, he betakes himself, as he did
before, to the
very fountain itself, even the favor of God, which not only alone brings to us eternal felicity but is also the source
of all blessings in this life.

11 “The inscription of the Pauline Epistles,” says Turrettin, “is according to the manner of the ancients, both Greeks and Romans. They were wont to prefix their name; and to those to
whom they wrote they added their good wishes.” We have an example in Acts 23:26. — Ed.

12 Thereby expressing the meaning of Paulus, which in Latin is little. “Paul,” says the quaint Elnathan Parr, “as signifies little, and indeed not unfitly, for he is reported to have been low in stature, and to have had a very small
voice,” which is thought to have been objected to him in 2 Corinthians 10:10 — Ed.

13 Most writers agree in this view, regarding Saul as his Hebrew name and Paul as his Roman name. — Ed.

14 “A called Apostle — vocatus apostolus — κλητὸς απόστολος;” our version is, “called to be an Apostle”. Most consider “called” here in the sense of chosen or elected, “a chosen Apostle.” Professor Stuart observes, that κλητὸς in the writings of Paul has always the meaning of efficient calling, and signifies not only the invited,
but the effectually invited. He refers to 1
Corinthians 1:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Romans 1:6, 7; Romans 8:28; compared with Galatians 1:15; Jude 1:1; Hebrews 3:1; Romans 11:29; Ephesians 4:1 He was an Apostle by a call, or as Beza renders it, “by the call of God — ex Dei vocatione apostolus.” The meaning is the same as what he himself expresses it in Galatians 1:1. Turrettin renders it, “Apostolus vocatione divina — an Apostle by divine vocation.” The difference between “a called Apostle” and “called to be an Apostle,” is this, that the first conveys the idea that he
obeyed the call, and the other does not. — Ed.

15 Αφωρισμένος separated, set apart; “segregatus,” Vulgate; “separatus, Beza. “The Pharisees,” says Leigh, “were termed ἀφωρισμένος we may English them Separatists: they separated themselves to the study of the law, in which respect they might be called ἀφωρισμένος εἰς τὸν νόμον, separated
to the law. In allusion to this, saith Drusius, the Apostle is thought to have styled himself, Romans 1:1, ἀφωρισμένον εἰς ἐυαγγέλιον, separated unto the Gospel, when he was called from being a Pharisee to be a preacher of the
Gospel.” Separated is the word adopted both by Doddridge and Macknight, as well as by our own version. — Ed.

16 Some combine the four separations. “Set apart in the eternal counsel of God, and from his mother’s womb, Galatians 1:15, and by the special commandment of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13:2, confirmed by constitution of the Church,
Acts 13:3; Galatians 2:9.” — Parr. But the object here seems to have been that stated by Calvin: nor is it just or prudent to connect any other idea with the word except that which the context requires; for to do so only
tends to create confusion. — Ed.

17 Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, etc., where, in a similar sense, called servants; and also our Savior. They were officially
servants. — Ed

18 The verb is προεπηγγείλατο only here; it comes from επαγγέλλομαι, which Schleusner says, means in the middle voice, to promise. “Which he had before promised.” is then the proper rendering, and not “Which
he formerly published,” as proposed by Professor Stuart. Both Doddridge and Macknight have retained our version, with which that of Beza agrees. — Ed.

19 “Declaratus,” ὁρισθέντος. Some of the ancients, such as Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others, have given to this verb the meaning of is “proved — δειχθέντος;” demonstrated
— ἀποφανθέντος;” “exhibited — ἀποδειχθώντος;”etc. But it is said that the word has not this meaning in the New Testament,
and that it means, limited, determined, decreed, constituted. Besides here, it is found only in Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Acts 10:42; Acts 11:29; Acts 17:26; Hebrews
4:7. The word, determined, or constituted, if adopted here, would amount to the same thing, that is, that Christ was visibly determined or constituted the Son of God
through the resurrection, or by that event. It was that which fixed, settled, determined, and manifestly exhibited him as
the Son of God, clothed and adorned with his own power. Professor Stuart has conjured a number of difficulties in connection with this verse, for which there seems to be no solid reason. The phrase,
the Son of God, is so well known from the usage of Scripture, that there is no difficulty connected with it: the full phrase is the only-begotten Son. To say that Christ’s resurrection was no evidence of his divine nature,
as Lazarus and others had been raised from the dead, appears indeed very strange. Did Lazarus rise through his own power?
Did Lazarus rise again for our justification? Was his resurrection an attestation of any thing he had previously declared?
The Revelation A. Barnes very justly says, that the circumstances connected with Christ were those which rendered his resurrection a proof of his
divinity. Professor Hodge gives what he conceives to be the import of the two verses in these words, “Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the
Son of David; but he was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection from the
dead.” This view is taken by many, such as Pareus, Beza, Turrettin, etc. But the words, “according to the Spirit of Holiness” — κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, are taken differently by others, as meaning
the Holy Spirit. As the phrase is nowhere else found, it may be taken in either sense. That the divine nature of Christ is
called Spirit, is evident. See 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 3:18 Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers, consider The Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives this paraphrase: — “Declared, or determinately marked out to be the Son of God and with power. The thing was demonstrated by an evidence, the exhibition
of which required a putting forth of power, which Paul in
another place represents as a very great and strenuous exertion, ‘According to the working of his mighty power when
he raised him from the dead.’ — The Spirit of Holiness, or the Holy Spirit. It was through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at
the birth of Jesus Christ; and the very same agent, it is remarkable, was employed in the work of the resurrection. ‘Put to
death in the flesh,’ says Peter,
and ‘quickened by the Spirit.’ We have only to do with the facts of the case. He was demonstrated to be the Son of God
by the power of the Holy Spirit having been put forth in raising him from the dead.” As to the genitive case after “resurrection,”
see a similar instance in Acts 17:32 The idea deduced by Calvin, that he is called here “the Spirit of Holiness,” on account of the holiness he works in us, seems not well-founded, though
advanced by Theodoret and Augustine. — Ed.

20 “Hypellage,” a figure in grammar, by which a noun or an adjective is put in a form or in a case different from that in which
it ought grammatically to be. — Ed.

21 If this view be taken, the best mode would be to render και, even “favor, even the apostleship.” But, as Wolfius says, “both words would perhaps be better rendered separately, and “grace” or favor be referred to the conversion of the
Apostle himself, and “apostleship” to his
office. See 1 Timothy 1:12-14, and Acts 9:15, Acts 13:2; Acts 22:21. —
Ed

22 He has taken this clause before that which follows, contrary to the order of the text, because he viewed it as connected
with the receiving of the apostleship. “Pro nomine ipsius,” — ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνὸματος αὐτοῦ; “ad nominis ejus gloriam — to the glory of his name,” Turrettin; “for
the purpose of magnifying his name,” Chalmers Hodge observes, “Paul was an apostle that all nations might be obedient, to the honor of Jesus Christ, that is, so that his name
may be known.” Some, as Tholuck, connect the words with “obedience to the faith,” as they render the phrase, and, in this sense, “that
obedience might be rendered to the faith among all nations for the sake of his name.” But it is better to connect the
words with the receiving of the apostleship: it was received for two purposes — that there might be the obedience of faith,
and that the name of Christ might be magnified. — Ed.

23 It might be rendered, “that there might be the obedience of faith,” or, “in order to produce,” or, “Promote the obedience
of faith.” The obedience is faith. The command is, “believe,” and the obedience must correspond with it. To obey the faith,
as in Acts 6:7, is a different form of expression: the article is prefixed there, it is the faith, meaning the gospel. —
See 2 Thessalonians 1:8. Professor Stuart and Haldane, agree in this view. The latter refers to Romans 10:3, where the Israelites are charged for not submitting to God’s righteousness; and, in verse 16, it is said, that they had not all obeyed the gospel, “for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” Then to believe the gospel is in an especial manner to obey it. — Ed.

24 “The called of Jesus Christ,” i.e., the called who belong to Christ. Κλητὸς means, not only those to whom the external call of the gospel has been addressed, but those who have been also internally called.” — Stuart. The same
author renders the words κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, in the next verse, “chosen saints,” or, “saints effectually called.” — Ed.

25 “The ancient Greeks and Romans,” says Turrettin, “wished to those to whom they wrote, in the inscription of their epistles, health, joy, happiness; but Paul prays for far
higher blessings even the favor of God, the fountain of all good things, and peace, in which the Hebrews included all blessings.” — Ed.

26 “From God our Father, — if God, then able; if our Father, then willing to enrich us with his gifts: and from our Lord Jesus Christ, — from our Lord, who has purchased them for us; from Jesus, for without these we cannot be saved; from Christ, for he is
anointed with grace and peace, John 1:16.” — Parr